Thou Shall not Kill Or Murder

[Jim Parker]

Cain killed Abel, according to Genesis. Def. He shed his blood. Took his life. Moses came down from the mountain with ten commandments written in stone. What do you think it said? You shall not kill or you shall not murder? How would the Israelites have understood murder? Murder wasn't defined.

They understood the difference because the same God who gave Moses the 10 commandments, including "Thou shalt not murder", also told the very same Israelites to go into the promised land and kill without pity every man, woman and child and all their livestock living there because of their detestable practices.

iakov the fool

 

[MarkT]

They understood the difference because the same God who gave Moses the 10 commandments, including "Thou shalt not murder", also told the very same Israelites to go into the promised land and kill without pity every man, woman and child and all their livestock living there because of their detestable practices.

iakov the fool

Murder is in the heart. It can be seen as a thought. ie.

Matthew 15:19
For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.

Killing is an act.

 

[MarkT]

Chapter 4

AH! I wasn't clear.
The point is that, as a result of Esther's and Mordecai's prayer and fasting, God intervened to give Esther sufficient influence over the king to induce him to make the second decree allowing the Jews to gather to defend themselves.

It is not stated in so many words but implied by the sequence of events in the story.
1. The plot to kill all the Jews is revealed to Esther.
2. Mordecai and Esther fast and pray.
3. Esther conceives of and carries out a plan to save the Jews.
4. The king agrees to allow the Jews to defend themselves.

Prayer and fasting is a common response of God's people to impending catastrophe.

You probably know God isn't even mentioned in the book of Esther. No word of God. No knowledge of God.

 

[WIP]

I'm beginning to think this thread has about run its course and becoming repetitious. Neither side of the argument will conceded at this point and unless something new is introduced, I see no point in continuing this lest it take a turn south.

 

[MarkT]

If you are not arguing what the word means in the Biblical languages then you are not arguing what the Bible says.

No, the "congregation did not judge."
The people appointed judges to judge.
Deu 16:18 You shall appoint judges and officers in all your gates, which the LORD your God gives you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with just judgment.

Not quite.
The judges would determine if the killing was a murder of a manslaughter.

Since what you described is not what they did in ancient Israel, Jesus could not have built on that non-existent foundation.
And, yes, the judges determined if the homicide was a murder or a manslaughter.

Also, Mat 5:21 is not the entire message. It is only a small piece of what Jesus said on the subject. The entire statement is:
Mat 5:21-26
You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder,[fn] and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’

But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.

Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny.

I emphasized the words "but", which introduces the higher standard that Jesus set, and "therefore" because it introduces the point that Jesus wanted to make which is; to be reconciled to your brother before it escalates into something worse.

iakov the fool

Numbers says the congregation shall judge.

Numbers 35:24
then the congregation shall judge between the manslayer and the avenger of blood, in accordance with these ordinances; RSV

Jesus said , shall be liable to the council. Same idea.

Anyone who kills will be liable to judgment. Mt. 5:21

Everything after that is built on the basic premise or understanding that You shall on kill. Ie. Murder is when you kill someone intentionally.

“Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death. But if he did not lie in wait for him, but God let him fall into his hand, then I will appoint for you a place to which he may flee. But if a man willfully attacks another to kill him treacherously, you shall take him from my altar, that he may die." Ex. 21:12-14

 

[MarkT]

Not in the Hebrew it's not. Which means not in any respectable translation into English, either. And I still have my RSV which is my first Bible, and I treasure it.

Depends on who is doing the translating. Before 1952, the year the RSV was published, the word was rendered 'kill' ASV, KJV, RSV.

Now it's 'murder.' So what happened? Why was the RSV revised? Why do the more recent translations say 'murder'? I would say ignorance. There was a huge change in the 60s; I call it the rebellion. They used to say, "God is dead" Evolution became a fact. Consider all the changes. School prayer was outlawed. Abortion became legal.

Even the Bible was affected. It's not hard to figure out why 'kill' was changed to 'murder'.

I wouldn't trust anything published after 1952.

 

[Razeontherock]

Ignorance of Hebrew does not pass for enlightenment.

 

[MarkT]

Ignorance of Hebrew does not pass for enlightenment.

The scribes and the Pharisees knew Hebrew. The Jews who wanted to stone Jesus knew Hebrew. What did they get for knowing Hebrew? Darkness! Right now they are in prison, weeping and gnashing their teeth, and saying, 'Why didn't you speak to us in English? Then we would have understood!'

Knowing Hebrew does not pass for enlightenment.

 

[MarkT]

If you are not arguing what the word means in the Biblical languages then you are not arguing what the Bible says.

No, the "congregation did not judge."
The people appointed judges to judge.
Deu 16:18 You shall appoint judges and officers in all your gates, which the LORD your God gives you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with just judgment.

Not quite.
The judges would determine if the killing was a murder of a manslaughter.

Since what you described is not what they did in ancient Israel, Jesus could not have built on that non-existent foundation.
And, yes, the judges determined if the homicide was a murder or a manslaughter.

Also, Mat 5:21 is not the entire message. It is only a small piece of what Jesus said on the subject. The entire statement is:
Mat 5:21-26
You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder,[fn] and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’

But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.

Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny.

I emphasized the words "but", which introduces the higher standard that Jesus set, and "therefore" because it introduces the point that Jesus wanted to make which is; to be reconciled to your brother before it escalates into something worse.

iakov the fool

Both the murderer and the man slayer are judged. It's not murder vs. manslaughter. The manslayer must flee to a safe city, that he may not die until he is judged.
Numbers 35:12
The cities shall be for you a refuge from the avenger, that the manslayer may not die until he stands before the congregation for judgment.

We should not relax the commandment and teach men it is ok to kill sometimes. Especially after Jesus said,
Matthew 5:20
For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

So Mt. 5:21-26 is about righteousness and judgment.

Note the severity of God regarding the law and who will be liable to judgment. So Jesus is casting a wider net regarding the law and judgment and what the law says about killing. So even insulting your brother is doing him injury. Call him a fool and you will be liable to the hell of fire.

 

[Razeontherock]

There's probably a reason that "Raca" is left in our text. What do you suppose it is?

 

[MarkT]

There's probably a reason that "Raca" is left in our text. What do you suppose it is?

Can you be more specific? What teaching are you referring to?

 

[WIP]

Both the murderer and the man slayer are judged. It's not murder vs. manslaughter. The manslayer must flee to a safe city, that he may not die until he is judged.
Numbers 35:12
The cities shall be for you a refuge from the avenger, that the manslayer may not die until he stands before the congregation for judgment.

We should not relax the commandment and teach men it is ok to kill sometimes. Especially after Jesus said,
Matthew 5:20
For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

So Mt. 5:21-26 is about righteousness and judgment.

Note the severity of God regarding the law and who will be liable to judgment. So Jesus is casting a wider net regarding the law and judgment and what the law says about killing. So even insulting your brother is doing him injury. Call him a fool and you will be liable to the hell of fire.

Judged in this context is not necessarily convicted. That's the whole point of going to the city of refuge, to plead his/her case.

 

[MarkT]

Judged in this context is not necessarily convicted. That's the whole point of going to the city of refuge, to plead his/her case.

I'm not sure I'm understanding you. Of course judged does not mean convicted. In this case the congregation rescues the manslayer from the avenger so that the man does not die.

The cities of refuge are for the manslayer; the person who kills a person without intent.

The congregation shall judge between the manslayer and the avenger of blood in accordance with the ordinances, and the congregation shall rescue the manslayer from the avenger of blood, and restore him to his city of refuge until the death of the high priest. And after the death of the high priest, the manslayer may return to the land of his possession. Num. 35: 22-26

 

[Razeontherock]

Can you be more specific? What teaching are you referring to?

Lol, what a perfect example of completely ignoring context.

Say no more

 

[WIP]

I'm not sure I'm understanding you. Of course judged does not mean convicted. In this case the congregation rescues the manslayer from the avenger so that the man does not die.

The cities of refuge are for the manslayer; the person who kills a person without intent.

The congregation shall judge between the manslayer and the avenger of blood in accordance with the ordinances, and the congregation shall rescue the manslayer from the avenger of blood, and restore him to his city of refuge until the death of the high priest. And after the death of the high priest, the manslayer may return to the land of his possession. Num. 35: 22-26

In the post I referenced, I understood you were equating both manslaughter and murder as both being judged the same and therefore both being convicted the same. You are not being totally clear with your position.

 

[Razeontherock]

In the post I referenced, I understood you were equating both manslaughter and murder as both being judged the same and therefore both being convicted the same. You are not being totally clear with your position.

Further, both are "killing," but only one is "murder."

To say that the prohibition is "killing" would mean we couldn't eat animals!

Taken a step further, we "kill" a tree to make a house, and we "kill" plant life to eat vegetables. This is Jainism, which explains why no one here has ever met anyone practicing that religion (you can't survive very long that way)

 

[MarkT]

Further, both are "killing," but only one is "murder."

To say that the prohibition is "killing" would mean we couldn't eat animals!

Taken a step further, we "kill" a tree to make a house, and we "kill" plant life to eat vegetables. This is Jainism, which explains why no one here has ever met anyone practicing that religion (you can't survive very long that way)

First, the law. The law is, You shall not kill. Whoever kills a person is guilty of breaking the law, and he is liable to judgment.

How can you talk about murder unless the law has been broken? Or how can you talk about the man slayer unless there is a transgression? Or why were cities set up for the man slayer to flee to, to save his life, if the law was not broken?

If the law is, You shall not murder (your understanding), then why is he fleeing? My position is he is fleeing because he transgressed the law, You shall not kill. (my understanding).

 

[Razeontherock]

First, the law. The law is, You shall not kill. Whoever kills a person is guilty of breaking the law, and he is liable to judgment.

.

No Sir, not even close. No Scripture was written in English.

Beat yourself to death over it if you must, but leave me out of it, as well as the rest of the forum. You've expressed your understanding of it eleventy-seven times already, and no one has found your position convincing, Scriptural, or anything else we're here for.

 

[MarkT]

No Sir, not even close. No Scripture was written in English.

Beat yourself to death over it if you must, but leave me out of it, as well as the rest of the forum. You've expressed your understanding of it eleventy-seven times already, and no one has found your position convincing, Scriptural, or anything else we're here for.

You say not even close, but that doesn't tell me anything. You keep saying the Bible was not written in English. So what?

The Scriptures were not written in English. OK?

Just looked up the Ten Commandments Dead Sea Scroll, English Translation. It says, 'Thou shalt not kill.' Ex. 20:13

 

[Jim Parker]

Why are we still beating this dead horse?